emulators/wine-devel: Change tested variable for master port detection

[salvadore]

Summary

It has been observed that the target config-recursive for emulators/i386-wine-devel can cause bsd.port.mk to be included twice when run in i386 jails. This seems to be due to the fact that config-recursive ignores PKGNAMEPREFIX definition, which is used in emulators/wine-devel to test wether bsd.port.[pre|post.]mk needs to be included or bsd.port.mk has already been included by i386-wine-devel. We change the testing variable to WINE_SLAVE_BUILD, defined in i386-wine-devel/Makefile.i386.

Test Plan

• Run successfully make config-recursive in i386 jails.
• Run successfully poudriere options -a i386 i386-wine-devel.
• Build i386-wine-devel and wine-devel ports successfully on poudriere for all supported architectures (i386, amd64).

[salvadore]

MASTERDIR breaks wine-devel. Try with _POSTMKINCLUDED, which is what bsd.port.mk uses at line 1580.

[salvadore]

Still not the good test: i386-wine-devel does not work with _POSTMKINCLUDED.
I need to study better the issue.

[salvadore]

Try with WINE_SLAVE_BUILD variable, defined in emulators/i386-wine-devel/Makefile.i386. I would have liked to remove that variable later, but apparently it can still be useful.

[gerald]

Here is what I wrote yesterday, but failed to hit "Submit":

Checking for _POSTMKINCLUDED looks like using a deep implementation detail - in general, variables whose name starts with an underscore indicate that.
Is there another way you can think of? Perhaps one that obviates this

Here is what I write today (and I shall hit "Submit" ;-):

Approved by: gerald (maintainer, mentor)

[salvadore]

Thanks, I will commit it if all tests passes.
I hope @scf can find the time to look at this review since he is one of the users who reported it, if I recall correctly.

[salvadore]

Committed. If this commit works as expected, we will need to forward it to emulators/wine, as emulators/i386-wine is affected by the same bug.

[gerald]

In D24167#531990, @salvadore wrote:

Committed. If this commit works as expected, we will need to forward it to emulators/wine, as emulators/i386-wine is affected by the same bug.

Yes, and I hereby pre-approve (as both maintainer and mentor). Let's first get i386-wine-devel updated and out there for a week or two, and await any potential feedback from that end before backporting this change (and further ones to i386-wine-devel itself).

[scf]

While I am late to the review, I was able to build i386-wine-devel-5.4,1 in an i386 jail and subsequently, within a amd64 jail. Thank you!

[salvadore]

In D24167#532246, @scf wrote:

While I am late to the review, I was able to build i386-wine-devel-5.4,1 in an i386 jail and subsequently, within a amd64 jail. Thank you!

Great! Thanks for feedback!

[salvadore]

This comment was removed by salvadore.